ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) has been filed by the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Kailashahar branch against the judgment and award dated 10.12.2018 delivered in Case No. TS (MAC) No. 15 of 2016 whereby and whereunder total sum of Rs. 4,46,000/- along with 9% interest thereon from the date of presentation of the petition till payment was awarded to the claimants (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) on account of death of the Swargadhan Chakma in a road traffic accident at Kailashahar on 02.11.2013. 2. Factual background of the case, is as under: The deceased was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. TR-02-A-2919 from Bhubanpur to Kinacharanpara on 02.11.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. When the speeding vehicle reached near Bhubanpur Sr. Basic School, it capsized on the road and said Swargadhan Chakma sustained severe injuries from the said occurrence. Local people had immediately taken him to Machmara Primary Hospital from where he was referred to Kailashahar district hospital. On the same day at about 11.30 p.m. he succumbed to his injuries. His son Amal Kumar Chakma lodged a written ejahar with the Officer-in-charge of Pacharthal police station alleging, inter-alia, that his father died from the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 3. Based on his FIR, Pacharthal P.S. Case No. 48 of 2013 under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC was registered and after investigation of the case police submitted charge sheet against accused driver, Niranjan Debnath (respondent No. 3) for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC. 4. Smt. Gurikka Chakma, married daughter of the deceased and his son Amal Kumar Chakma being claimants filed the claim petition at the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 11,15,000/- along with 9% interest on the said amount. 5. Notice was issued to the respondents including the insurance company. On behalf of the insurance company (respondent no. 3 at the Tribunal) it was pleaded that statement of the claimants with regard to age, avocation and income of the deceased were not true. The insurance company however, pleaded that payment of compensation would be subject to presentation of the original insurance policy, valid driving license of the accused driver and valid documents of the vehicle. 6. 3 at the Tribunal) it was pleaded that statement of the claimants with regard to age, avocation and income of the deceased were not true. The insurance company however, pleaded that payment of compensation would be subject to presentation of the original insurance policy, valid driving license of the accused driver and valid documents of the vehicle. 6. In the course of the trial of the case, the claimants adduced the evidence of said Amal Kumar Chakma as PW-1 and that of the claimant daughter of the deceased as PW-2. Besides adducing their oral evidence, the claimants also submitted several documents including the FIR and injury report of the deceased. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and deceased Swargadhan Chakma who was travelling in the said vehicle received serious injuries from the said accident and succumbed to his injuries at hospital. The tribunal further held that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 and the insurance policy (Exbt.C-1) was operative on the date of accident. Observing that deceased was 61 years old at the time of occurrence and he was a day labourer by occupation, the Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 7 worked out the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,36,000/-. For loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/- was given to his daughter and son at the rate of 40,000/- per head and for loss of estate and for funeral expenses Rs. 30,000/- was given and the total compensation was quantified by the Tribunal as under: S. No. Head Amounts 1. For loss of dependency Rs. 3,36,000/- 2. For loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/- 3. For loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4. For funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 4,46,000/- 9% annual interest was allowed on the said amount from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of payment. 8. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Kailashahar branch filed this appeal challenging the said award mainly on the following grounds: (i) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. (ii) None of the claimants were dependant family members of the deceased because claimant daughter was married and the claimant son was also having his own income as a day labourers. (ii) None of the claimants were dependant family members of the deceased because claimant daughter was married and the claimant son was also having his own income as a day labourers. Therefore, tribunal should have rejected their claim. (iii) The tribunal did not follow the uniform procedure and guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in various judicial pronouncements and on this ground the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. (iv) The tribunal erroneously granted consortium to the married daughter and adult son of the deceased which is not also tenable in the eye of law. 9. In the course of his argument, Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently argued that none of the claimants were dependant family members of the deceased and, as such, they were not entitled to any compensation at all. Further submission of Mr. Gautam, learned counsel was that the claimants who were married daughter and son of the deceased were not entitled to any compensation for loss of consortium. It was also contended on behalf of the insurance company that the claimants could not produce any evidence in support of the income of the deceased and, as such, the income of the deceased was absolutely a guess work of the tribunal based on no evidence and, therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal was unjust and unfair. 10. Counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal by a detailed and reasoned judgment awarded a just and fair compensation to the claimants which does not warrant any interference in appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, urges for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Since there is no objection to the fact that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and father of the claimant respondents died in the said accident and the vehicle was insured with the appellant and the insurance policy (Exbt.C-1) was operative on the date of accident, obviously the claimant respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to compensation owing to the death of their father in the said road traffic accident. The only question which arises for determination by this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair. 12. Both of the claimants in their evidence have stated that their father was a day labourer who used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month. The only question which arises for determination by this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair. 12. Both of the claimants in their evidence have stated that their father was a day labourer who used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month. Relying on their evidence Tribunal guessed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 200/- per day and Rs. 6,000/- per month which would be Rs. 72,000/- per year. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 7 for determination of loss of dependency as per the table laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the amount after such multiplication stood at Rs. 72,000 x 7 = 5,04,000/-. One third of the said amount was deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased since the number of dependent family members of the deceased was 2(two) and after such deduction the amount came to be Rs. 5,04,000 - 1,68,000 = 3,36,000/-. With this amount Tribunal awarded Rs. 80,000/- for loss of consortium for two claimants and also awarded Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and thus total compensation of Rs. 4,46,000/- was awarded with 9% interest thereon. 13. In view of what is discussed above, this Court is of the view that the tribunal has rightly assessed the amount of compensation payable to the claimants which does not call for any interference in appeal. However, in so far as the rate of interest on the awarded amount is concerned, it should be reduced to 7% from 9% annual interest. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal will therefore, carry, 7% annual interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition till payment. The appellant shall deposit the said amount of compensation with the Registry of the High Court within 6(six) weeks after deducting the amount, already paid/deposited. The Registry will, in turn, release the amount of compensation in equal share to the claimants. 14. In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of. 15. Send down the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment. Copy of the judgment be also given to Secretary to HCLSC for compliance. The Registry will, in turn, release the amount of compensation in equal share to the claimants. 14. In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of. 15. Send down the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment. Copy of the judgment be also given to Secretary to HCLSC for compliance. Fees of the legal aid counsel appointed for the claimant respondents shall be paid by High Court Legal Services Committee at the rate as admissible.